The problem with Health Care: "Government involvement"

Double post


[edit on 15-8-2009 by dizzylizzy]

It strikes me that the provision of the essentials of life for everyone, and I do mean the essentials, by society is a requirement that simply does not warrant even questioning.

On that basis what is the difference between a nation establishing armed forces to defend the nation, a police agency to defend the citizens and uphold the law, emergency services to deal with, well, emergencies, and medical provision for the ill?

To differentiate between any one of them, for example to suggest that people should as individuals pay in order to have police protection from law breakers or provision of firefighters if they have a fire is exactly the same as arguing that the delivery of medical services when their health breaks down.

Of course nothing comes free, of course everything has to be paid for one way or another, the point being that to provide certain essential services funded by taxation and yet miss an essential service from that source of funding and leave it to individuals to cater for themselves is --- well, perverse

Originally posted by mental modulator

Ah but who penned the concept???

Who is shouting racist BTW? You RUSH AND BECK???

As communist I am we aware of the spin and I honestly have not heard a preemptive peep from my boys.

What is this bizarre and totally unjustified desire by you people to always want to associate people with Rush or whomever.

I think for myself thank you very much.

[SNIP]



Mod Edit: Removed politically antagonistic comments.

Mod Note: Please review this link: REAFFIRMING OUR DESIRE FOR PRODUCTIVE POLITCAL DEBATE.

[edit on 8/15/2009 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
It strikes me that the provision of the essentials of life for everyone, and I do mean the essentials, by society is a requirement that simply does not warrant even questioning.

On that basis what is the difference between a nation establishing armed forces to defend the nation, a police agency to defend the citizens and uphold the law, emergency services to deal with, well, emergencies, and medical provision for the ill?

To differentiate between any one of them, for example to suggest that people should as individuals pay in order to have police protection from law breakers or provision of firefighters if they have a fire is exactly the same as arguing that the delivery of medical services when their health breaks down.

Of course nothing comes free, of course everything has to be paid for one way or another, the point being that to provide certain essential services funded by taxation and yet miss an essential service from that source of funding and leave it to individuals to cater for themselves is --- well, perverse

We have a Constitution that defines the role of the Federal Govt. and the purpose for this strict definition is for the preservation of our rights.

You peolpe who think that a "right" means that you get to make me a slave for your economic benefit are mistaken about a great many things when it comes to the basis of American govt and the American notion of rights.

Originally posted by tommy_boy
Right! Now your talking! Nothing wrong with basic socialist ideals. At the very least no more in volume than you can find wrong with Capitalism.

Wrong. One system allocates resource most efficiently, the other WASTES resource, misallocates capital, and not to mention oppressive in nature.

I'll let you figure out which is which: Hint since I know you're not brightest bulb on ATS, it does not start with an "S".

FREE of course! Cept it's not free (obviously). We are paying for it; that's the public option. Don't think anyone's saying it's free. But it should absolutely be an entitlement.

Wait? What's your definition of entitlement? Didn't you say HEATH CARE IS A RIGHT?

You just put your foot in your mouth! That's exactly what free or subsidized health care is...an entitlement program. And YES, it will encourage people to OPT out of the MARKET provided health care and thus BURDENING our government with another ILL CONCEIVED SOCIAL PROGRAM.

Sure and most people thought BUSH was alright...and a damn good president too.

To hell with the polls, right tommy?

Voting does too...right it tells you nothing as well. WHAT THE PEOPLE NEED is a strong fuhrer...err..I mean leader to show them the way...right tommy?

Not clueless, but you keep somehow articulating the reasons why so many want reform. I'm afraid your not doing your cause much of a service.

Tommy...again, you're not using that thing that rests between your shoulders.

If the government announced that hence forth TOMORROW it will provide subsidized CAR INSURANCE. Will not most people logically jump on board this new program? Since it is SUBSIDIZED meaning government will pick-up a portion of the bill? Just because people will logically choose this cheaper option does not mean there is an inherent problem in the CAR INSURANCE business. What it does say is that people, will logically choose something for what is perceived as nothing...especially if someone ELSE IS PAYING FOR IT.

Hey you love this system, be my guest! But there's a public option comin yer way whether you like it or not. Just close yer eyes, but leave yer checkbook out. My neighbor needs an appendectomy.

Hold your horses, comrade!! Nothing has been, etched in stone yet.

Ohh, I've read your stuff, and it's just all over the place. I get it. You hate Obama, he's a socialist commie, you don't wanna pay for anything, your a fringe extremist, Hannity/Bush-lovin rightie. You read Rasmussen polls (which says enough, honestly). I get it. More importantly I get "you." There's no point trying to sway people like you. It's just always fun to expose you guys on these threads for the walking contradictions that you are.

Hahaha....read my previous posts. I'm anti republican scumbags as well as liberal scumbags. You know nothing, kid...again you show yourself as the prejudging BIG GOVERNEMNT, TAX SPENDING, SOCIALIST, OBAMA LOVER THAT YOU ARE.




[edit on 15-8-2009 by Gateway]

What I see happening over this debate for mandatory health insurance is the LACK in the media spin over the public's distrust of their elected officials. Most of today's citizens have lost their trust in government after 911. (I can't say as I blame em for that)

Never once where the borders closed as the 911 commission found or recommended; followed by no weapons of mass destruction being found in Iran. Once the chairman of the Federal Reserve forced the dept of the treasury to bail out the investment bankers on wall street; it sealed the fate of distrust by the average taxpayer. Why? Cause the financial melt down was under the INSURANCE giants.

My bitch is with the media and congress for not being honest!

reply to post by mental modulator


Again...LOWERING INTEREST RATES TO 1% didn't provide incentives for people to borrow to buy homes or refinance........NNNNNNNNNNOOOOO!

KEEP mental modulating....I don't think it's working out.

Originally posted by VinceP1974

Originally posted by mental modulator

Ah but who penned the concept???

Who is shouting racist BTW? You RUSH AND BECK???

As communist I am we aware of the spin and I honestly have not heard a preemptive peep from my boys.

What is this bizarre and totally unjustified desire by you people to always want to associate people with Rush or whomever.

I think for myself thank you very much.

Maybe you fools on the Left should drop the political bigotry and listen to other people for a change .

actually I didn;t me to put the word you before RUSH... sorry

although I am a political bigot....

Originally posted by Gateway
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Again...LOWERING INTEREST RATES TO 1% didn't provide incentives for people to borrow to buy homes or refinance........NNNNNNNNNNOOOOO!

KEEP mental modulating....I don't think it's working out.

Once again it is the duty of the lender to assess the borrowers risk -

Keep shilling you lobbyist you


GO PROFIT!!!!

Nice post Gateway.

Lets keep this simple.

Obama wants to spread the wealth. (Marxism) People to "pay their fair share". Biden calls it "your patriotic duty" to pay more taxes, they both want to end charitable deductions and have the government take over. This is the mind set to government run healthcare.

More control, more power.

If they had REALLY wanted to do something about the poor, the uninsured they would have brought up tort reform.

I have read HR3200 and not ONCE is that mentioned.

This idea that people will get care is laughable. Once this bill passes you will get;

1. Less care, rationing
2. Worse care, fewer doctors
3. Higher costs, as a result of rationing
4. Government dictating how to live your life (preventive care)
5. Government in your checking account (direct pay to government insurance)
6. Higher taxes, if you think you won't get hit by this, U2U me, I have a bridge I'm selling. . .
7. Abortion on demand at every and any medical center in the country
8. Death Panels (if you think they get rid of this, see #6)


If you have elderly relatives, or know someone who is elderly, say goodbye now. With government run programs, they will be the first to go. Then all the babies born with congenital diseases (forced cost of the State) then just people who aren't as productive. Then you'll have the people on the government enemies list that will be denied healthcare because they don't toe the government line.

Lets just cut through the chase, this is ugly. This is what is going to happen. Those of you that spout Pelosi talking points are going to be suffering with the rest of us that "told you so".

-good morning, I'll get off my soapbox now-

Originally posted by VinceP1974
So it's Unconstitutional for the Govt to force me to give up my property to them to pay for the medical care of other people.

So why wouldn't you be just as upset about the fact that those of us with health insurance, who are healthy and don't use it much, are subsidizing and paying for the health care of people who don't have health insurance?

Already happening

And it is made worse because we wind up subsidizing much more expensive catastrophic care because the un-insured, and the under-insured, inevitably wait until an illness progresses to very serious levels.

Your current health insurance costs are weighted to cover the care given to those unfortunate members of our society.

Bizarre, most of the arguments I hear against any health insurance reform are some of the most unreasoned, illogical, and hyperbolic piles of steaming rhetoric ever typed on a keyboard.

[edit on 15-8-2009 by cranberrydork]

Anyone wanna' place bets on the number of posts in this thread getting special moderator care?

Really gentleman......there's no need for the political baiting. Did you miss the last memo?

reply to post by marg6043


Most of those are out and out lies, many are careful manipulations and mis-interpretations of the language in the bill.

You actually need to read the bills.....try to understand them. Granted, it can be tough to wade through the muck and decipher it....but it isn't impossible.

I've already beat the tar out of many of those points in another thread so I won't bother here.....I'll just repeat my request that people actually read the contents....and don't rely on some email spam campaign to develop your political views.

reply to post by cranberrydork


Tort reform.

-sigh-

I can't repeat it enough!

That's why we pay so damn much!

reply to post by mikerussellus


Actually I've talked that up before. It is one of the better ideas floated to reduce health care costs. The numbers of unnecessary procedures and test performed in order for providers to "cover their ass"....drives up the overall costs.

Unfortunately, lawyers are in charge of most of this stuff.....maybe if we could have a bunch of carpenters and housepainters work on this it might actually make some sense.

reply to post by Gateway


Me Mine Me Mine.

don't complain that the younger generation does nothing but care about themselves. It is already starting to happen.

When and only when:


Complete and whole and equal opportunities for people, will I agree that people should keep what is theirs.

When there is no more discrimination of sex, religion, age, and sexual preference.

When there is no more good ol boys club that keep people out of jobs.

When people are not unjustly arrested and prosecuted for the above mentioned.

When families no longer have a parent abandoning them.

When people can afford to go to college based on merit and not ability to pay.

When people of minorities are not told they are not going to amount to anything in school.

When people are not terminated based on disablility and getting hurt on the job.

When people have access to the mental health care and crisis services they need to function.

When there is no more rampent undiagnosed mental illness.

When illegal drugs are completely eliminated.

Then, and only then, will I say your post rings true. Then that would mean that every American would have equal, unhindered access to employment and education. And your statement that what I worked for is mine, will stand true.


Fact is, you may just well have at the expense of another, and you don't know it.



[edit on 15-8-2009 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by cranberrydork


True.

That's why I have such issue with the government control over all this. The one thing that would actually work, they won't do.

That's why it isn't about affordable care for all. It's a money/power grab from the government.

What I also love is how many people on ATS protest that the government doesn't care about you, but suddenly, it cares enough to be involved in every decision of health care.

Pick one.


I have been on MCHIP, and there was no government involvement, I got all the services I need.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I also understand that Hawaii healthcare is going down the tubes

www.businessandmedia.org...

It's a perfect example of government care.

No one is explaining to the Weople that when you take them out of the private

insurance sector and put them into a government run healthcare plan that the

private insurance companies will have to raise their prices. The reason being is

the insurance companies base their premiums on how many Weople are in their

healthcare program to share the load of expenses amongst many other factors.

Dah! ^Y^